Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

The Transport and General Workers' Union very much welcomes the opportunity to input our view at such an early stage of this study and thank you for inviting Trade Union contributions.

The T&G has 870,000 members many of whom work in the chemical industry itself. With the generally increasing awareness of the importance of the impact of human activity on the environment and ultimately on human health and well-being, members are themselves increasingly aware of their responsibility towards the environment and wish also to see their employers taking a responsible attitude. Ultimately if industry's impact on environment is not sustainable then our members' livelihoods will be threatened.

The following are the comments from the Transport and General Workers' Union.

Overall aim
Since the aim is not very clear we suggest that the "broad topics" (and preamble) are rewritten to include more clearly the aim for the study e.g.

"To equip the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution:

1.   To provide an authoritative overview of the many facets of the process of assessing the effects of chemicals in the environment and

2.   To make recommendations on

a.  how the risks from chemicals are best identified and assessed

b.  the principles that should underpin their Regulation at European Union and International level, taking particular account of the science, markets, impact on industry, waste reduction and societal values."

Sustainable Jobs
Regulation must be effective in protecting the environment. Our members want sustainable jobs and if there is to be acceptance by society of major job losses, investment is necessary in restructuring industry to ensure that workers are reskilled in new environmentally sustainable industries. Acceptance of regulation clearly is an important element to effective regulation.

That said, regulation should be framed so that it achieves its environmental protection aims but minimises other costs to industry and society. However, in practice, cost must never be the main driver. With the legal test of BATNEEC our experience is that the result of this is often that industry takes less effective measures than should be the case. We believe there should be more direction/prescription to counter this general trend and encourage a more level playing field. Fair competition can help minimise impact on business.

We believe therefore that the principles of regulation should consider social impact.

Waste Reduction and life-cycle analysis
Before disposal of waste is considered measures to reduce waste should be considered. And this is just one aspect of life cycle analysis. The use of a chemical and its impact on the environment should be considered at all stages of its use. Every stage should consider what can be done to best reduce future impact including reducing final quantities being disposed.

There should be some consideration of a more holistic approach to environmental protection, touching in particular on the excluded areas e.g. ozone depletion. The current topics touch on this idea under "Substitution" where non-chemical alternatives will be considered. Clearly this study cannot consider this in detail, but the links should be incorporated to some degree. It would seem a lost opportunity and a potential for incompatibility not only with health and safety regulation but also other areas of environmental regulation.

Regulation - Scope
The scope of measures to be considered should include fiscal measures. For instance packaging should be subject to an eco-tax unless producers can prove it is part of a deposit refund scheme such as the "Die Gruene Punkt" scheme in Germany. Likewise all one-use products should be eco-taxed. Taxation on the major industry polluters should be significant enough to deter. The polluter must really pay!

Occupational and Consumer Exposure
We appreciate the need to keep a focus and recognise the already ambitious nature of the study, but we believe consideration needs to be given to occupational and consumer exposure. Otherwise we believe there is a danger that the final recommendations will not be considered practical.

Assuming the aim is to provide authoritative views on regulation of chemicals we find it hard to see how this can be done without considering occupational and consumer exposure. In addition key routes by which chemicals enter the environment is via occupational and consumer use, for example pesticide spray drift,. Regulation at this point must be a key area to be considered.

EU regulation binds these areas to one another (for example the Existing Substances Regulation (ESR) (Council Regulation applicable to Member States) ) and the Notification of New Substances Regulations (NONS) (the implementation of an EU Directive in the UK). The experience of ESR in particular may benefit the debate and is relevant to the current EU Chemical Review. A key discussion area of ESR is how to balance health, safety and environment risks along with the benefits society already gains from the chemicals.

Recommendations on risk assessment would also be pointless if they were incompatible with occupational health and safety risk assessment in particular. Balancing health, safety and environmental risks is a fundamental issue in this area, and so a problem which shouldn't be ignored.

Our experience is also that occupational exposure has acted as an early warning sign of problems to come. A review of measures of the impact on human health presumably will be a part of the study?

As a minimum, risk assessment recommendations should not be incompatible with health and safety risk assessment unless there is a full consideration of the health and safety issues. Likewise for recommendations on regulation.

We think a clearer statement of the exclusions would also be helpful. For instance excluding "Occupational Exposure" could be understood as excluding anything to do with the chemicals that workers are potentially exposed to. This could then mean the exclusion of PCBs leaking from transformers, heat exchangers, paints etc. Also excluding indirect effects would seem to exclude pollution which has the effect of reducing or destroying crop yields. Is this the intention?

Balance between toxicity testing and animal welfare
If this issue is to be tackled effectively alternatives to animal testing should be considered. In addition, consideration should be given to how to ensure that all the available information about the toxicity of any particular chemical is gathered before animal testing is considered.

Synergy
There is growing concern about synergistic effects of chemical cocktails. This is an area in which the current regulatory system is inadequate. We suggest therefore that this is explicitly included as part of the scope of the study.

Changing Behaviour
Regulation is likely to attempt to change people's and organisations' behaviour. Recommendations on regulation change should consider this. For instance HSE has done and sponsored work on the effectiveness of chemical labels and data sheets.

Other points
(The following numbers refer to the topics list in the document)

Topic 6. (Prioritising which chemicals) We suggest this shouldn't, at this stage, define criteria for which chemicals are most urgent - this should be part of the study and is also something on which the public may well have a view.

Topic 8. (The speed of the current assessment process) Occupational and consumer exposure regulation is certainly fully a part of this debate.

Topic 10. (Operation of the Precautionary Principle) As may already be planned, this work should include a review of the definitions of the precautionary principle in practical operation. Perhaps a more explicit reference here would be helpful.

Topic 11. (Substitution principle) We fully support a review of this, but would suggest that the non-chemical solutions should definitely be included, rather than be a "possible extension" to the study.

Topic 13. (Producer/User responsibilities) The role of suppliers of chemicals must also be considered. Experience in health and safety has shown this to be crucial for effective regulation. For instance one of the practical difficulties of ESR has been getting information about the supply chain to identify who produces the chemical/product. The CHIP regulations ensure that the user receives necessary information about the chemical by giving all suppliers of chemicals duties to provide information.

In addition the definition of user must be broad enough to include manufacturers and users of products, such as plastic packaging which via landfill/incineration are another source of pollution.

Topic 16. (Gaps in coverage) We believe that life-cycle analysis should be a legal requirement. Companies should be made to consider the environmental impact of their products from "cradle to grave" and required to minimise impact. They should also be held accountable for their raw material suppliers.

Topic 18. (Trade and Environment) This is a huge area with links to labour standards and fair trade. We presume the study is addressing this area in order to determine the best way to ensure that minimum standards are agreed and adhered to, particularly in international forums such as the WTO. We suggest this should include a positive aspect - e.g. the tensions between and opportunities offered for environment through free trade ("Green consumerism" has had some effect, if not terribly radical).

We hope the above comments are helpful.

Back to Index of comments to the scoping of the Chemicals Study